[Sabertooth]

Well, get your rear in gear and elect Republican Senators! When there are 66+ Senators (hopefully 70) from our party, then the people like Olympia Snow and John McCain will lose their leverage!

66 or 70 Republican Senators? Why not 90?

Why not 400 Republican Congressmen, while we're at it?

This moving of the bar invites GOP unaccountability.

We were told in 2000 that we needed to take back the Senate to confirm conservative judges. Then the Democrats fought back. Our party wrung their hands in fury.

Now, we're told we need a veto-proof supermajority, or a rino-veto-proof superdupermajority.

Every election, politicians need to fear for their jobs. If a politician doesn't feel that fear, there is no leverage over him. Which voters do politicians fear the most?

The ones that make or break most elections, and those aren't committed, hell or high water voters, those are taken for granted.

Once a politician knows your vote is in the bag, he'll put golf spikes in your back to get to a swing voter.

Getting rid of Democrats is only half the battle; the other half must be fought simultaneously, and that is to get Republicans to act like they have enough of a spine to stand up for the values of their constituents.

[OWK]

Applause.

[k2blader]

Getting rid of Democrats is only half the battle; the other half must be fought simultaneously, and that is to get Republicans to act like they have enough of a spine to stand up for the values of their constituents.

Great post, Sabertooth.

[Chad Fairbanks]

MEGA-BUMP

[Miss Marple]

Practically, please tell me how electing a democrat to replace Olympia Snowe helps us.

As you can see, I am sceptical of your comment.

Having a majority was our goal, and a lot of people (I daresay most) thought that was good enough. Unfortunately, the Rats were underestimated.

We need a super majority to get judges. You know this, and I find your comment to be nothing but an attempt to get people to arguing and slamming Repulicans.

Pfui.

[Neets]

Our party wrung their hands in fury.

You are being too kind to them.

They actually bent over and begged for more...(sorry to be so blunt but there ya have it.)

[truthandjustice1]

"Getting rid of Democrats is only half the battle; the other half must be fought simultaneously, and that is to get Republicans to act like they have enough of a spine to stand up for the values of their constituents. "

And they would be?

[A CA Guy]

Some of the key to this is getting the public wanting to vote more conservative.

Many places where the Republicans are a bit wishy washy could have voters that might vote them out for being too conservative in office (as those voters see it).

You are "assuming this issue/problem away" as Republicans just having to follow the will of the voters that got them there, but you are assuming those that voted them there might have been Reagan types and they might have been far more liberal.

So I think we have to convert more of the voters to accept and back more conservative candidates over time.

Even that isn't an over-night easy thing to achieve.

[Bob J]

66 or 70 Republican Senators? Why not 90? Why not 400 Republican Congressmen, while we're at it?

Sounds good! BTW - You're veiled sarcasm implies that having these numbers will result in less conservative legislation and judges. Care to elaborate?

This moving of the bar invites GOP unaccountability.

Empty rhetoric. Maybe less accountability to demanding fringe voters like Libertarians, but not to the general run of the mill conservative population.

We were told in 2000 that we needed to take back the Senate to confirm conservative judges. Then the Democrats fought back. Our party wrung their hands in fury.

Who'd a thunk the dems would have pulled out their crying towels and played rules tricks? Although I think all would agree that Frist needs to play hardball.

Now, we're told we need a veto-proof supermajority, or a rino-veto-proof superdupermajority.

I believe you meant "filibusterproof". A veto proof supermajority would be 2/3rds and is what the dems desire at this point.

Every election, politicians need to fear for their jobs. If a politician doesn't feel that fear, there is no leverage over him. Which voters do politicians fear the most?

The ones from the other party. Oh, and the fringe voters from their own party demanding actions that would turn the 50% middle of the road voters into socialists.

The ones that make or break most elections, and those aren't committed, hell or high water voters, those are taken for granted.

That would be the 50% in the middle, not the 5% superfringe nutcases.

Once a politician knows your vote is in the bag, he'll put golf spikes in your back to get to a swing voter.

So let's hold out our 5% and make demands, because we all know 5% is bigger than 50%.

Getting rid of Democrats is only half the battle; the other half must be fought simultaneously, and that is to get Republicans to act like they have enough of a spine to stand up for the values of their constituents.

Want to help give pubs some spine? How about letting them know you will support them through thick and thin even though you don't agree with them 100%. Conservative politicians are more scared of the liberal press, who are looking to take them out and end their careers, at the slightest misstep they make. This works because too many conservative, particularly the ones willing to jump ship at election time due to a perceived lack of ideological purity, are too quick to dump them as damaged goods.